To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

For your consideration-- : suggestions and reflections on teaching and learning

For your consideration-- : suggestions and reflections on teaching and learning

CFE Number 2 November 2009
Classroom Activities for Active Learning
For well over a decade, the focus of the university
classroom has steadily shifted from a teaching-centric
approach to a learning-centric approach (Barr &
Tagg, 1995). This shift calls for a rethinking of the
traditional classroom, replacing the standard lecture
with a blend of pedagogical approaches that more
regularly involve the student in the learning process.
Under a learning-centered approach, the instructor
retains “control” of the classroom, but thought
is regularly given to: (a) how well students will
learn the material presented, and (b) the variety of
pedagogically sound methods that may be employed
to help the students better understand the core
information to be learned.
There is now strong empirical evidence that active
involvement in the learning process is vitally impor-tant
in two areas: (a) for the mastery of skills, such
as critical thinking and problem-solving and (b) for
contributing to the student��s likelihood of persisting
to program completion (Braxton, Jones, Hirschy, &
Hartkey, 2008; Prince, 2004). Below are a few strate-gies
that can be used by faculty in a wide variety of
courses.
Questioning Techniques
For those who use lecture as the primary delivery
method in the classroom, there are a few relatively
easy methods to increase student involvement and
interest in the classroom, regardless of course level or
academic field. At the simplest level, this approach
requires asking questions during the lecture that
challenge students to apply the concepts and princi-ples
introduced. Although most instructors would
maintain that their students already ask questions
during class, some college professors still devote only
a small portion of class time to posing questions to
students. Most of these questions are directed at the
lowest cognitive level, requiring only recapitulation,
clarification, or factual responses. Often only a small
proportion of students regularly respond.
There are a few things an instructor can do to
increase the number of different students respond-ing
in a given class period. One method is simply
to change the way in which questions are asked.
Periodically calling on students is a long-held
method to determine which students are understand-ing
the material and which are paying attention.
The only downside to this approach is that some
students are terrified to speak before a group, and
when surprised with a quickly-delivered question
the student may “freeze.” One approach that often
helps students is to teach them to quickly sketch out
a response to a question in their notes. When posing
questions, pause for 15 to 30 seconds and then call
on students. The length of the pause can be adjusted
based on the cognitive complexity of the expected
response. Another method is to give some “thinking”
questions or calculations at the end of class and tell
students the next class will begin with students being
called on to respond to those items. Finally, it is
sometimes helpful to focus attention on a small area
of the class and wait for a response from a student
volunteer. This increases “pressure” for someone in
that area to respond.
In addition to getting a variety of students regularly
responding to questions posed in the classroom, it
is important that the responses increase in cognitive
levels as the course progresses. To insure that they ask
questions from the higher cognitive levels, instruc-tors
who are adept at questioning usually prepare
for class by writing their questions in the margins of
their lecture notes or on their lesson plan. Also keep
in mind that, although there are many degrees of
cognitive complexity, for planning purposes three
levels are particularly important: remembering,
applying, and evaluating (Anderson & Krathwohl,
2001). At the lowest level, remembering questions
help to ascertain whether the students have the facts
for your consideration... s u g g e s t i o n s a n d r e f l e c t i o n s o n t e a c h i n g a n d l e a r n i n g
Center for Faculty Excellence University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
straight—can they recall or recognize basic informa-tion.
Examples include:
• What is the difference between a sodium atom
and a sodium ion?
• What three conditions must be met for
something to qualify as a business asset?
Median level application questions require students
to use information to: (a) deduce the significance
of results of experiments, (b) apply formulas to new
problems, (c) relate theoretical abstractions to real
situations, or (d) analyze patterns of relationships
among concepts and develop generalizations from
them. Examples include:
• How would you explain the connection between
confidence interval construction and hypothesis
testing?
• How well do American secondary schools fit
Weber’s definition of a bureaucracy?
Evaluation questions require students to exercise
judgment—one of the higher levels of cognition.
Students must choose the best alternatives or
solutions and be able to justify those choices (in
other words, to demonstrate the same thought
processes that a professional in the field uses to make
decisions). Examples include:
• In this case study, what would you do if you were
the company treasurer?
• How could the nation experience rapid inflation
and high unemployment at the same time?
The skillful use of probing and follow-up questions
will encourage students to try to answer the more
difficult and complex questions. Lectures in which
students are regularly asked to respond hold
additional benefits for learning. Students have
the opportunity to test their understanding of the
material as it is presented, they have many chances
to practice thinking critically and creatively, and
their motivation to study and keep up with course
assignments improves (Bligh, 2000).
Although a number of instructors at UNC report
that they use questions to promote interaction even
in very large classes, the method is clearly more
difficult to use in larger sections. One approach that
some instructors are using today involves audience
response systems or “clickers.” This technology
allows the instructor to pose a question to the class
and easily collect the responses. Advocates of this
technological solution report that, when used in a
learner-centered framework, the increased interaction
through strategically posed questions can, among
other things, assess prior knowledge; elicit a misper-ception;
stimulate discussion; and exercise a cogni-tive
skill (Beatty & Gerace, 2009; Fies & Marshall,
2008). Many of the strategies described in this issue
are complemented by audience response systems.
Small Groups
Research comparing the effectiveness of lectures and
discussions indicates that, although both techniques
are similarly effective for knowledge-level learning,
the results consistently favor discussion methods
over lecture on a number of measures: problem-solving,
transfer of knowledge to new situations, and
motivation for further learning (Bligh, 2000). There
are many small group techniques that may be used
in almost any course with very little effort or risk.
The primary focus is getting students to really think
about the material so they are able to vocalize what it
is they are thinking about.
Pair-Share. One of the easiest ways to get students
talking about an issue or topic in class is to use the
“think/write–pair–share” method. (Lyman, 1992). In
this approach, an instructor simply poses an issue
or problem to the class and then gives students 30
seconds to one minute to think about or write out
their response. Students then pair up and explain
their responses to one another for 3 to 5 minutes.
Finally, as a class, the issue or result is discussed.
Because this technique takes only about 4 to 6
minutes of class time, it could be done one or two
times in each class session. This format has worked
successfully in many different kinds of courses
including math, chemistry, history, philosophy, and
art criticism. In a variation on the technique, the
instructor asks students to vote on an issue (e.g.,
“Would you have voted to award President Obama
the Nobel Peace Prize?”), then asks individuals about
what informed their decision. The class is asked to
vote again, and students who changed their votes are
asked why they did so (Fink, 2003).
Buzz Groups. McKeachie (2006) uses a buzz group
technique to ensure student participation in large
classes. In his lectures, when he comes to a concept
that lends itself to discussion, he asks students to
form groups of five to eight people to talk about the
issue. He instructs them to make sure each member
of the group contributes at least one idea to the
discussion. After 10 minutes, he calls on some of
the groups to report and asks other groups who
came to the same conclusion to raise their hands.
As they report, he records their main points on the
blackboard and then incorporates the material into
a future lecture.
Three-Step Interview. For this small group process,
students first work in pairs. The first person in the
dyad interviews or questions the second person. The
second person then interviews or questions the first
person. For the next step, two dyads work together.
One person from the first dyad explains their conclu-sion
or summary to the second dyad, and one of
the individuals from the second dyad explains their
summary or results to the first dyad.
Whole Class Involvement
The Lecture Check (Mazur, 1997). This strategy works
very well in large classes, but is equally effective in
smaller class enrollments. The first step is to deliver
a lecture for 15 to 20 minutes, and then project a
question for the class to see. Often this is a multiple
choice item that is similar to the type of question
that will be used on an exam. Students are asked to
raise their hands as the instructor asks how many
think ‘a’ is the correct response; how many chose
‘b,’; and so on. If most of the students have the
correct response, the instructor simply continues
with the course material. If, however, more than
approximately 20% chose the incorrect response,
the instructor has students turn to their neighbor
and convince them of the correct choice. Finally, the
instructor goes through the items again to see how
many choose each alternative. If an unacceptable
number still have incorrect responses, it may be wise
to go back over the material. Students also can be
called on to defend the selection they have made.
Whole-Class Debates (Frederick, 2002). Taking advan-tage
of the dividing aisle in large lecture halls, the
instructor assigns sides of a debate to the two halves
of the class (or, by prearrangement, students sit on
the side of the room representing the point of view
they wish to support). The instructor asks each side
for five statements supporting their side of the issue.
This process may be repeated, with rebuttals, until
the instructor feels that the class has fully explored
the issue. To end the debate and achieve closure, the
instructor asks for two or three volunteers to make
summary arguments for each side.
Role-Playing and Debates (Fredrick, 2002). A simple
definition of role-playing is a loose simulation in
which students assume the roles of individuals or
groups in a real-life situation. Contemporary issues
in the social sciences are often appropriate for these
kinds of simulations (for example, the placement of a
toxic-waste dump, the forced integration of an ethnic
neighborhood, or the opening of a nuclear power
plant). In order to plan such an exercise, the instruc-tor
must clearly identify the situation, define the
roles of the interest groups involved, and specify the
task for each group. These proposals will inevitably
conflict ideologically, tactically, economically, region-ally,
or in some other fundamental way. The class
usually begins with a mini-lecture to establish the
context and setting, after which students work on
their proposals in their assigned groups. When they
have finished, the instructor can hear the proposals
and immediately incorporate them into a lecture on
how closely they reflect positions people have taken
in these conflicts (and the implications for society).
Although all of the exercises outlined above have
been used successfully in auditorium-style class-rooms,
it is true that the physical arrangement of
the room and the number of students in the class
can make some of the exercises difficult to carry out.
Instructors report, however, that students will often
find creative ways to overcome these environmental
constraints in order to have the opportunity to
exercise their minds more actively in the classroom.
These exercises require careful planning by the
instructor and adequate preparation by students.
They should not be used as a substitute for lecturing,
but rather as an integral part of the learning experi-ence.
Reading & Writing Exercises
In-class reading and writing exercises also promote
student engagement in the learning process, even in
large classes. Often, in-class exercises can be used to
gauge student learning, to help students think more
deeply about the course material, and prompt class
discussion.
Close Reading. A time-honored technique that
improves reading comprehension and provides a
measure of engagement in the subject matter is the
Close Reading Method (Bass & Linkon, 2009). In
class, the instructor models how to read and interpret
a passage while the students follow in their books.
After this demonstration, individual students may
be called upon to read aloud and interpret similar
selections. In a literature course, after reading
particularly ambiguous passages of a novel or poem,
students might be asked to discuss them in groups
of two or three to decide what the selection means,
paraphrasing it in their own words. The instructor
can ask a few of the groups to give their interpreta-tions
before providing his or her own analysis. This
technique works well for other kinds of analysis and
interpretation: for example, teaching students in an
economics course how to read a supply and demand
curve, or, in an anthropology course, how to read
an artifact. Finally, the technique can be used early
in the semester in an introductory course to demon-strate
how to read and highlight the textbook or the
course readings.
Classroom Assessment Techniques. Some instructors
use short, in-class writing assignments as a means
to keep students mentally engaged in the course
material and also as feedback to assess the extent to
which students understanding the material (Angelo
& Cross, 1993). Writing also helps them learn to
express their thoughts more clearly and focuses their
attention on important elements of the course. Short
writing assignments (a paragraph or two) can be
given as pre- and post-lecture activities. Requiring
students to write their thoughts or questions about
the day’s topic before the lecture begins will concen-trate
their attention on the topic and prepare them
for active listening. At the end of the presentation,
writing out their impressions of the lecture, and
any questions they have about the topic, will help
them place the material in context. It also provides
valuable feedback to the instructor as a collection of
possible test questions.
Students can be asked to write short summaries of
material at any point during a lecture. In summariz-ing,
they select the most pertinent elements from
the material and restate them in their own words.
This process of synthesis and personalization leads to
better, more permanent learning. One math instruc-tor
at UNC, in classes in which she has introduced
a new concept or procedure, always ends by asking
students to write a brief summary of it (e.g., how
to solve a rational expression). Students also can
describe the aspect of the material for the day they
find most confusing. These “muddiest point” papers
are an excellent method to determine what, if any, of
the material is particularly confusing to the student.
How these written exercises are used in the course
will depend upon the type of class, the instructor’s
objectives, the subject matter, and a variety of other
factors. They could be collected and graded, kept in
a journal (graded or ungraded), or simply used by
the students themselves.
Concluding Thoughts
Actively engaging students in the classroom will help
them think more deeply about the course content,
bring additional energy to the classroom, and help
identify the extent to which they may be struggling
with the material. Active learning techniques have
become increasingly common in recent years, and
are being used extensively on UNC’s campus. In
addition to reading the published literature of active
learning in your discipline, ask around your depart-ment.
You may well learn a new technique that can
be put to immediate use.
Bibliography
Anderson L. W., Bloom B. S. and Krathwohl D. R.
(2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing:
A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives.
New York: Longman.
Angelo, T. A., & Cross, P. K. (1993). Classroom assess-ment
techniques: A handbook for college teachers (2nd
Ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). “From Teaching to
Learning: A New Paradigm for Undergraduate
Education.” Change 27(6): 12–25.
Bass, R., & Linkon, S. L. (2009). On the evidence
of theory: Close reading as a disciplinary model
for writing about teaching and learning. Arts and
Humanities in Higher Education, 7, 245–261.
Beatty, I., & Gerace, W. (2009). Technology-enhanced
formative assessment: A research-based pedagogy for
teaching science with classroom response technol-ogy.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(2),
146–162.
Bligh, D. (2000). What’s the point in discussion?
Portland, Oregon: Intellect Books.
Braxton, J. M., Jones, W. A., Hirschy, A. S., & Hartley,
H. V., III. (2008). The role of active learning in college
persistence. New Directions for Teaching and Learning,
Number 115, 71–83.
Fies, C., & Marshall, J. (2008). The C3 framework:
Evaluating classroom response system interactions in
university classrooms. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 17(5), 483–499.
Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning
experiences: An integrated approach to designing college
courses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Frederick, P. J. (2002). Engaging students actively in
large lecture settings. In C. A. Stanley, & M. E. Porter
(Eds.), Engaging Large Classes: Strategies and Techniques
for College Faculty (pp. 58–66). Bolton, MA: Anker
Publishing Company.
Lyman, F. T. (1992). Think-Pair-Share, Thinktrix,
Thinklinks, and weird facts: An interactive system for
cooperative learning. In N. Davidson & T. Worsham
(Eds.), Enhancing Thinking Through Cooperative Learn-ing
(pp. 169–181). New York: Teachers College Press.
McKeachie, W. J., & Svinicki, M. (2006). McKeachie’s
teaching tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College
and University Teachers (12th ed.). Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Publishing.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A
review of the research. Journal of Engineering
Education, 93(3), 223–231.
316 wilson library; campus box 3470
chapel hill, nc 27599-3470
919.966.1289; cfe@unc.edu
http://cfe.unc.edu

CFE Number 2 November 2009
Classroom Activities for Active Learning
For well over a decade, the focus of the university
classroom has steadily shifted from a teaching-centric
approach to a learning-centric approach (Barr &
Tagg, 1995). This shift calls for a rethinking of the
traditional classroom, replacing the standard lecture
with a blend of pedagogical approaches that more
regularly involve the student in the learning process.
Under a learning-centered approach, the instructor
retains “control” of the classroom, but thought
is regularly given to: (a) how well students will
learn the material presented, and (b) the variety of
pedagogically sound methods that may be employed
to help the students better understand the core
information to be learned.
There is now strong empirical evidence that active
involvement in the learning process is vitally impor-tant
in two areas: (a) for the mastery of skills, such
as critical thinking and problem-solving and (b) for
contributing to the student��s likelihood of persisting
to program completion (Braxton, Jones, Hirschy, &
Hartkey, 2008; Prince, 2004). Below are a few strate-gies
that can be used by faculty in a wide variety of
courses.
Questioning Techniques
For those who use lecture as the primary delivery
method in the classroom, there are a few relatively
easy methods to increase student involvement and
interest in the classroom, regardless of course level or
academic field. At the simplest level, this approach
requires asking questions during the lecture that
challenge students to apply the concepts and princi-ples
introduced. Although most instructors would
maintain that their students already ask questions
during class, some college professors still devote only
a small portion of class time to posing questions to
students. Most of these questions are directed at the
lowest cognitive level, requiring only recapitulation,
clarification, or factual responses. Often only a small
proportion of students regularly respond.
There are a few things an instructor can do to
increase the number of different students respond-ing
in a given class period. One method is simply
to change the way in which questions are asked.
Periodically calling on students is a long-held
method to determine which students are understand-ing
the material and which are paying attention.
The only downside to this approach is that some
students are terrified to speak before a group, and
when surprised with a quickly-delivered question
the student may “freeze.” One approach that often
helps students is to teach them to quickly sketch out
a response to a question in their notes. When posing
questions, pause for 15 to 30 seconds and then call
on students. The length of the pause can be adjusted
based on the cognitive complexity of the expected
response. Another method is to give some “thinking”
questions or calculations at the end of class and tell
students the next class will begin with students being
called on to respond to those items. Finally, it is
sometimes helpful to focus attention on a small area
of the class and wait for a response from a student
volunteer. This increases “pressure” for someone in
that area to respond.
In addition to getting a variety of students regularly
responding to questions posed in the classroom, it
is important that the responses increase in cognitive
levels as the course progresses. To insure that they ask
questions from the higher cognitive levels, instruc-tors
who are adept at questioning usually prepare
for class by writing their questions in the margins of
their lecture notes or on their lesson plan. Also keep
in mind that, although there are many degrees of
cognitive complexity, for planning purposes three
levels are particularly important: remembering,
applying, and evaluating (Anderson & Krathwohl,
2001). At the lowest level, remembering questions
help to ascertain whether the students have the facts
for your consideration... s u g g e s t i o n s a n d r e f l e c t i o n s o n t e a c h i n g a n d l e a r n i n g
Center for Faculty Excellence University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
straight—can they recall or recognize basic informa-tion.
Examples include:
• What is the difference between a sodium atom
and a sodium ion?
• What three conditions must be met for
something to qualify as a business asset?
Median level application questions require students
to use information to: (a) deduce the significance
of results of experiments, (b) apply formulas to new
problems, (c) relate theoretical abstractions to real
situations, or (d) analyze patterns of relationships
among concepts and develop generalizations from
them. Examples include:
• How would you explain the connection between
confidence interval construction and hypothesis
testing?
• How well do American secondary schools fit
Weber’s definition of a bureaucracy?
Evaluation questions require students to exercise
judgment—one of the higher levels of cognition.
Students must choose the best alternatives or
solutions and be able to justify those choices (in
other words, to demonstrate the same thought
processes that a professional in the field uses to make
decisions). Examples include:
• In this case study, what would you do if you were
the company treasurer?
• How could the nation experience rapid inflation
and high unemployment at the same time?
The skillful use of probing and follow-up questions
will encourage students to try to answer the more
difficult and complex questions. Lectures in which
students are regularly asked to respond hold
additional benefits for learning. Students have
the opportunity to test their understanding of the
material as it is presented, they have many chances
to practice thinking critically and creatively, and
their motivation to study and keep up with course
assignments improves (Bligh, 2000).
Although a number of instructors at UNC report
that they use questions to promote interaction even
in very large classes, the method is clearly more
difficult to use in larger sections. One approach that
some instructors are using today involves audience
response systems or “clickers.” This technology
allows the instructor to pose a question to the class
and easily collect the responses. Advocates of this
technological solution report that, when used in a
learner-centered framework, the increased interaction
through strategically posed questions can, among
other things, assess prior knowledge; elicit a misper-ception;
stimulate discussion; and exercise a cogni-tive
skill (Beatty & Gerace, 2009; Fies & Marshall,
2008). Many of the strategies described in this issue
are complemented by audience response systems.
Small Groups
Research comparing the effectiveness of lectures and
discussions indicates that, although both techniques
are similarly effective for knowledge-level learning,
the results consistently favor discussion methods
over lecture on a number of measures: problem-solving,
transfer of knowledge to new situations, and
motivation for further learning (Bligh, 2000). There
are many small group techniques that may be used
in almost any course with very little effort or risk.
The primary focus is getting students to really think
about the material so they are able to vocalize what it
is they are thinking about.
Pair-Share. One of the easiest ways to get students
talking about an issue or topic in class is to use the
“think/write–pair–share” method. (Lyman, 1992). In
this approach, an instructor simply poses an issue
or problem to the class and then gives students 30
seconds to one minute to think about or write out
their response. Students then pair up and explain
their responses to one another for 3 to 5 minutes.
Finally, as a class, the issue or result is discussed.
Because this technique takes only about 4 to 6
minutes of class time, it could be done one or two
times in each class session. This format has worked
successfully in many different kinds of courses
including math, chemistry, history, philosophy, and
art criticism. In a variation on the technique, the
instructor asks students to vote on an issue (e.g.,
“Would you have voted to award President Obama
the Nobel Peace Prize?”), then asks individuals about
what informed their decision. The class is asked to
vote again, and students who changed their votes are
asked why they did so (Fink, 2003).
Buzz Groups. McKeachie (2006) uses a buzz group
technique to ensure student participation in large
classes. In his lectures, when he comes to a concept
that lends itself to discussion, he asks students to
form groups of five to eight people to talk about the
issue. He instructs them to make sure each member
of the group contributes at least one idea to the
discussion. After 10 minutes, he calls on some of
the groups to report and asks other groups who
came to the same conclusion to raise their hands.
As they report, he records their main points on the
blackboard and then incorporates the material into
a future lecture.
Three-Step Interview. For this small group process,
students first work in pairs. The first person in the
dyad interviews or questions the second person. The
second person then interviews or questions the first
person. For the next step, two dyads work together.
One person from the first dyad explains their conclu-sion
or summary to the second dyad, and one of
the individuals from the second dyad explains their
summary or results to the first dyad.
Whole Class Involvement
The Lecture Check (Mazur, 1997). This strategy works
very well in large classes, but is equally effective in
smaller class enrollments. The first step is to deliver
a lecture for 15 to 20 minutes, and then project a
question for the class to see. Often this is a multiple
choice item that is similar to the type of question
that will be used on an exam. Students are asked to
raise their hands as the instructor asks how many
think ‘a’ is the correct response; how many chose
‘b,’; and so on. If most of the students have the
correct response, the instructor simply continues
with the course material. If, however, more than
approximately 20% chose the incorrect response,
the instructor has students turn to their neighbor
and convince them of the correct choice. Finally, the
instructor goes through the items again to see how
many choose each alternative. If an unacceptable
number still have incorrect responses, it may be wise
to go back over the material. Students also can be
called on to defend the selection they have made.
Whole-Class Debates (Frederick, 2002). Taking advan-tage
of the dividing aisle in large lecture halls, the
instructor assigns sides of a debate to the two halves
of the class (or, by prearrangement, students sit on
the side of the room representing the point of view
they wish to support). The instructor asks each side
for five statements supporting their side of the issue.
This process may be repeated, with rebuttals, until
the instructor feels that the class has fully explored
the issue. To end the debate and achieve closure, the
instructor asks for two or three volunteers to make
summary arguments for each side.
Role-Playing and Debates (Fredrick, 2002). A simple
definition of role-playing is a loose simulation in
which students assume the roles of individuals or
groups in a real-life situation. Contemporary issues
in the social sciences are often appropriate for these
kinds of simulations (for example, the placement of a
toxic-waste dump, the forced integration of an ethnic
neighborhood, or the opening of a nuclear power
plant). In order to plan such an exercise, the instruc-tor
must clearly identify the situation, define the
roles of the interest groups involved, and specify the
task for each group. These proposals will inevitably
conflict ideologically, tactically, economically, region-ally,
or in some other fundamental way. The class
usually begins with a mini-lecture to establish the
context and setting, after which students work on
their proposals in their assigned groups. When they
have finished, the instructor can hear the proposals
and immediately incorporate them into a lecture on
how closely they reflect positions people have taken
in these conflicts (and the implications for society).
Although all of the exercises outlined above have
been used successfully in auditorium-style class-rooms,
it is true that the physical arrangement of
the room and the number of students in the class
can make some of the exercises difficult to carry out.
Instructors report, however, that students will often
find creative ways to overcome these environmental
constraints in order to have the opportunity to
exercise their minds more actively in the classroom.
These exercises require careful planning by the
instructor and adequate preparation by students.
They should not be used as a substitute for lecturing,
but rather as an integral part of the learning experi-ence.
Reading & Writing Exercises
In-class reading and writing exercises also promote
student engagement in the learning process, even in
large classes. Often, in-class exercises can be used to
gauge student learning, to help students think more
deeply about the course material, and prompt class
discussion.
Close Reading. A time-honored technique that
improves reading comprehension and provides a
measure of engagement in the subject matter is the
Close Reading Method (Bass & Linkon, 2009). In
class, the instructor models how to read and interpret
a passage while the students follow in their books.
After this demonstration, individual students may
be called upon to read aloud and interpret similar
selections. In a literature course, after reading
particularly ambiguous passages of a novel or poem,
students might be asked to discuss them in groups
of two or three to decide what the selection means,
paraphrasing it in their own words. The instructor
can ask a few of the groups to give their interpreta-tions
before providing his or her own analysis. This
technique works well for other kinds of analysis and
interpretation: for example, teaching students in an
economics course how to read a supply and demand
curve, or, in an anthropology course, how to read
an artifact. Finally, the technique can be used early
in the semester in an introductory course to demon-strate
how to read and highlight the textbook or the
course readings.
Classroom Assessment Techniques. Some instructors
use short, in-class writing assignments as a means
to keep students mentally engaged in the course
material and also as feedback to assess the extent to
which students understanding the material (Angelo
& Cross, 1993). Writing also helps them learn to
express their thoughts more clearly and focuses their
attention on important elements of the course. Short
writing assignments (a paragraph or two) can be
given as pre- and post-lecture activities. Requiring
students to write their thoughts or questions about
the day’s topic before the lecture begins will concen-trate
their attention on the topic and prepare them
for active listening. At the end of the presentation,
writing out their impressions of the lecture, and
any questions they have about the topic, will help
them place the material in context. It also provides
valuable feedback to the instructor as a collection of
possible test questions.
Students can be asked to write short summaries of
material at any point during a lecture. In summariz-ing,
they select the most pertinent elements from
the material and restate them in their own words.
This process of synthesis and personalization leads to
better, more permanent learning. One math instruc-tor
at UNC, in classes in which she has introduced
a new concept or procedure, always ends by asking
students to write a brief summary of it (e.g., how
to solve a rational expression). Students also can
describe the aspect of the material for the day they
find most confusing. These “muddiest point” papers
are an excellent method to determine what, if any, of
the material is particularly confusing to the student.
How these written exercises are used in the course
will depend upon the type of class, the instructor’s
objectives, the subject matter, and a variety of other
factors. They could be collected and graded, kept in
a journal (graded or ungraded), or simply used by
the students themselves.
Concluding Thoughts
Actively engaging students in the classroom will help
them think more deeply about the course content,
bring additional energy to the classroom, and help
identify the extent to which they may be struggling
with the material. Active learning techniques have
become increasingly common in recent years, and
are being used extensively on UNC’s campus. In
addition to reading the published literature of active
learning in your discipline, ask around your depart-ment.
You may well learn a new technique that can
be put to immediate use.
Bibliography
Anderson L. W., Bloom B. S. and Krathwohl D. R.
(2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing:
A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives.
New York: Longman.
Angelo, T. A., & Cross, P. K. (1993). Classroom assess-ment
techniques: A handbook for college teachers (2nd
Ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). “From Teaching to
Learning: A New Paradigm for Undergraduate
Education.” Change 27(6): 12–25.
Bass, R., & Linkon, S. L. (2009). On the evidence
of theory: Close reading as a disciplinary model
for writing about teaching and learning. Arts and
Humanities in Higher Education, 7, 245–261.
Beatty, I., & Gerace, W. (2009). Technology-enhanced
formative assessment: A research-based pedagogy for
teaching science with classroom response technol-ogy.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(2),
146–162.
Bligh, D. (2000). What’s the point in discussion?
Portland, Oregon: Intellect Books.
Braxton, J. M., Jones, W. A., Hirschy, A. S., & Hartley,
H. V., III. (2008). The role of active learning in college
persistence. New Directions for Teaching and Learning,
Number 115, 71–83.
Fies, C., & Marshall, J. (2008). The C3 framework:
Evaluating classroom response system interactions in
university classrooms. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 17(5), 483–499.
Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning
experiences: An integrated approach to designing college
courses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Frederick, P. J. (2002). Engaging students actively in
large lecture settings. In C. A. Stanley, & M. E. Porter
(Eds.), Engaging Large Classes: Strategies and Techniques
for College Faculty (pp. 58–66). Bolton, MA: Anker
Publishing Company.
Lyman, F. T. (1992). Think-Pair-Share, Thinktrix,
Thinklinks, and weird facts: An interactive system for
cooperative learning. In N. Davidson & T. Worsham
(Eds.), Enhancing Thinking Through Cooperative Learn-ing
(pp. 169–181). New York: Teachers College Press.
McKeachie, W. J., & Svinicki, M. (2006). McKeachie’s
teaching tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College
and University Teachers (12th ed.). Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Publishing.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A
review of the research. Journal of Engineering
Education, 93(3), 223–231.
316 wilson library; campus box 3470
chapel hill, nc 27599-3470
919.966.1289; cfe@unc.edu
http://cfe.unc.edu